Israel Decides not to Appear in Hague Case

[peacelover]

New forum - cool! :cool:

Israel will not appear. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/393826.html)

I'm not sure I think this is a good idea.

I could see where Israel was coming from in not recognising the case at all, but they have submitted affidavit evidence, so this can't be their reasoning.

I think if the case is going to go ahead, Israel ought to turn up and make its point.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by peacelover
New forum - cool! :cool:

Israel will not appear. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/393826.html)

I'm not sure I think this is a good idea.

I could see where Israel was coming from in not recognising the case at all, but they have submitted affidavit evidence, so this can't be their reasoning.

I think if the case is going to go ahead, Israel ought to turn up and make its point.

I agree, with one exception.

In the highly unlikely event that the US and EU have assured Israel that once the proceedings begin they will loudly and clearly declare the proceedings inappropriate and illegitimate, then it would be unwise for Israel to be seen as participating even under protest.

But most likely, the US and EU won't do this, and Israel should at least take the opportunity to present evidence that the security fence is designed to hinder the Palestinians from continuing their racist war against the Jewish people and all Israeli civilians.

The ICJ is a foolish and naive concept, and it should come as no surprise that it is now putting itself at the service of Palestinian racists who are upset that Israel is building a fence that hinders their ability to simply walk a short distance to commit atrocities.

[MGB8]

Its a tactical decision. The ICJs eventual ruling, which will certainly be against Israel - regardless of who appears or what is argued, gains more legitimacy if Israel appears, argues and thus "consents" to jurisdiction.

I think a big reason was the refusal of the ICJ to excuse the Egyptian judge who had prejudged the case. Just having judges from nations who's actions are major pieces of evidence in this case (Egypt and Jordan - the 6 day war), is intolerable.

The GA's resolution, which pre-judges issues of law by declaring the land "occupied Palestinian land", is also intolerable.

That said, I think that there would be merit to presenting the full Israeli case to a public world forum - in particular addressing the issue of whether or not the land is legally "occupied" or "disputed".



Originally posted by ibrodsky
I agree, with one exception.

In the highly unlikely event that the US and EU have assured Israel that once the proceedings begin they will loudly and clearly declare the proceedings inappropriate and illegitimate, then it would be unwise for Israel to be seen as participating even under protest.

But most likely, the US and EU won't do this, and Israel should at least take the opportunity to present evidence that the security fence is designed to hinder the Palestinians from continuing their racist war against the Jewish people and all Israeli civilians.

The ICJ is a foolish and naive concept, and it should come as no surprise that it is now putting itself at the service of Palestinian racists who are upset that Israel is building a fence that hinders their ability to simply walk a short distance to commit atrocities.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by MGB8
Its a tactical decision. The ICJs eventual ruling, which will certainly be against Israel - regardless of who appears or what is argued, gains more legitimacy if Israel appears, argues and thus "consents" to jurisdiction.

I think a big reason was the refusal of the ICJ to excuse the Egyptian judge who had prejudged the case. Just having judges from nations who's actions are major pieces of evidence in this case (Egypt and Jordan - the 6 day war), is intolerable.

The GA's resolution, which pre-judges issues of law by declaring the land "occupied Palestinian land", is also intolerable.

That said, I think that there would be merit to presenting the full Israeli case to a public world forum - in particular addressing the issue of whether or not the land is legally "occupied" or "disputed".

DO you think the affidavit evidence was therefore a bad idea?

I think Israel needed to make up its mind- either appear and defend itself, or not recognise the case at all. sending written information and a mangled bus but not actually appearing seems to be somewhere uncomfortably in between...

[MGB8]

But that's the Israeli way! See the WB and Gaza...we never could decide what to do with it - we can't give it up for security (and water) purposes, we can't absorb the resident population, we can't expell them, we can't kill them... we will work out administration with the Jordanians and some locals, and sort of leave the Arab population to do its own thing, while we build some limited settlements and some roads.

That said, there are no clear solutions, so Israel splits the difference.

Also, reading that S.C. resolution 446 that declares the land "occupied" may damn Israel's case. Without that resolution, the land is CLEARLY "disputed" under standards of international law, and not "occupied" in a technical sense (although it is occupied in a real sense, since Israel controls the land but has not annexed it) and Israel's fence is perfectly legal. But since the UN has established a double standard for Israel as opposed to the rest of the world....it pretty much pre-judges the outcome of the case.

Originally posted by peacelover
DO you think the affidavit evidence was therefore a bad idea?

I think Israel needed to make up its mind- either appear and defend itself, or not recognise the case at all. sending written information and a mangled bus but not actually appearing seems to be somewhere uncomfortably in between...

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by peacelover
DO you think the affidavit evidence was therefore a bad idea?

I think Israel needed to make up its mind- either appear and defend itself, or not recognise the case at all. sending written information and a mangled bus but not actually appearing seems to be somewhere uncomfortably in between...

Clearly, Israel has done a terrible job presenting its case to the world, and the Arab/Muslim world has had a field day making false accusations, spreading vile slanders, and ganging up on Big Bad Israel.

So you are absolutely right--first they cooperated and now they have bowed out. It not only looks bad, it says that Israel lacks the courage to stand up and defend itself simply because the odds are against it.

Instead, Israel should have either determined from the start that the trial was to be conducted by a kangaroo court that deserved nothing but derision or Israel should have accepted the fact that the verdict was already decided but use the pretend proceedings as a platform to expose the Arab world's dishonesty and brutal crimes.

[MGB8]

Israel should publically consider withdrawing from the United Nations, given that it is discriminated against there (it cannot appear on the Security Council, for one, not to mention the ridiculous double standards for SC and GA resolutions about Israel and about every other nation.)

The fact that the UN has been so completely turned by the Jihadists into a tool for their aggressions is a very very sad thing.

The UN is a very sad joke and should be closed down - all it does is waste time and resources.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by MGB8
Also, reading that S.C. resolution 446 that declares the land "occupied" may damn Israel's case. Without that resolution, the land is CLEARLY "disputed" under standards of international law, and not "occupied" in a technical sense (although it is occupied in a real sense, since Israel controls the land but has not annexed it) and Israel's fence is perfectly legal. But since the UN has established a double standard for Israel as opposed to the rest of the world....it pretty much pre-judges the outcome of the case.

I will be surprise if this resolution subsitute 242 and 338. This resolution like any other has no legal validity since 1994, since Jordan and Israel signed peace. All resolutions refer to 242 and 338, all of the "peace" processes have always been based on them. It only refers to "settlement" as being illegal and urge Israel "as the occupying power" to do whatever the Geneva ask of them. However in 2004, and since 1994, 94% of the arabs (the ones in Area A) are under the rule of the PLO therefore the duty are upon them.

Another technical point, this resolution asked Israel

"not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;"

That has been formulated in such a way because they try to say something which had no international legal sense. The willing migration of people (settlers in this case) is not a transfer and what's about the olhim that settle there and who have dual nationality?

This resolution like the other as no head or tail and toi anyone that will argue with you that "the word occupation means illegal presence" just point to UNSCR resolution 660 that "Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990". No negotiation of territories for peace like 242 and 338 demands, this was clearly illegal and the word occupation was not used.

[eyl]

I'm not sure about that. Even if 446 is valid (given that it seems to contradict earlier and later UNSC resolutions), it only regards the settlements and is based Geneva Conventions; but the Conventions allow an occupying power to construct structures related to security.

Originally posted by MGB8
Also, reading that S.C. resolution 446 that declares the land "occupied" may damn Israel's case. Without that resolution, the land is CLEARLY "disputed" under standards of international law, and not "occupied" in a technical sense (although it is occupied in a real sense, since Israel controls the land but has not annexed it) and Israel's fence is perfectly legal. But since the UN has established a double standard for Israel as opposed to the rest of the world....it pretty much pre-judges the outcome of the case.

[old-reb]

Why should Israel attend a kangaroo court when the outcome is already known and add legitimitcy to a lynching?

old reb

[peacelover]

Old Reb;

I don't disagree, but Israel did acknowledge the court when it submitted affidavit evidence. If it was going to do this, it ought to have finished the job, so to speak...

[Binyamin]

I understand that the affidative which Israel submitted was only to argue that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, and therefore they never granted any legitimacy to the proceedings. Even this submission may have been a mistake since no one pays to much attention to the contents of the affidative, while everyone sees that Israel is participating in the case.

The bus is being sent by ZAKA, which is an NGO, and not by the Israeli government.

Even if there is already an impression that Israel has granted a degree of legitimacy to the hearings, I think they made the right decision to not participate further. They are making a strong point about the illegitimacy of the court, and the bias of world bodies. If they would argue that the fence is legal, their opinion would be completely disregarded, and they would not gain anything.

I hope that this is a first step for Israel in distancing itself from the UN and related organizations. Israel should end its membership with the UN, and at a later point end recognition of, and cooperation with, the UN.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Binyamin
I understand that the affidative which Israel submitted was only to argue that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, and therefore they never granted any legitimacy to the proceedings. Even this submission may have been a mistake since no one pays to much attention to the contents of the affidative, while everyone sees that Israel is participating in the case.

The bus is being sent by ZAKA, which is an NGO, and not by the Israeli government.

Even if there is already an impression that Israel has granted a degree of legitimacy to the hearings, I think they made the right decision to not participate further. They are making a strong point about the illegitimacy of the court, and the bias of world bodies. If they would argue that the fence is legal, their opinion would be completely disregarded, and they would not gain anything.

I hope that this is a first step for Israel in distancing itself from the UN and related organizations. Israel should end its membership with the UN, and at a later point end recognition of, and cooperation with, the UN.

I understand and sympathize with your view, but I don't think this is the wisest course of action.

First, let me make it clear that I consider the UN to be corrupt and dominated by nations that deny their own people basic rights.

Plus, I oppose the idea of any body serving as a nascent world government. The UN should be restricted to supplying disaster relief and providing a discussion forum to help avert or bring to a quick end armed conflicts. Certainly the UN should not go beyond offering suggestions. Nor should such a world body take sides in conflicts, as that undermines its ability to serve as a forum as I've described.

Still, were Israel to pull out of the UN, Israel's enemies would simply say it is an admission of guilt. What Israel needs to do is persuade the civilized world--the democracies--that Israel's treatment at the UN is grossly unfair. Israel should not be passing up opportunities to make its case. The problem so far is that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to spread their lies, and all too often Israel has failed to respond in a way the rest of the world can understand. Plus, Israel rarely launches any PR campaigns of its own to show the horrors of jihad-genocide and to expose the campaign of vile slanders waged against the Jewish people by the Arab/Muslim world.

Let me give you a little example. When I was growing up I occasionaly heard an Israel supporter respond to the usual charges against Israel by pointing out that the Palestinians already have their own state: Jordan. The problem is that I did not know at that time that Jordan had been carved out of Palestine. So this seemed like a non-answer even to me. Unfortunately, Jews don't seem to realize that the most basic facts must be explained and repeated over and over.

As I said before, the only excuse for not participating would be if the EU and US have agreed to publicly and loudly slam the ICJ if it moves forward with this hearing. Unless there are other powerful voices speaking out against the proceedings, it will appear that Israel simply ran away. Plus, this can only undercut any future Israeli attempt to get the ICJ to hear complaints about Arab war crimes (not to see justice is done, but for the PR value).

It is a disgrace that Israel allows the Arab/Muslim world to spread its lies and hate almost unopposed.

[Binyamin]

Israel definately needs to start a PR campaign, and they should focus on the democratic governments.

I do not think that being in the UN, or taking terrorism to the ICJ, will help them. The Arab and African states have an automatic majority in the General Assemby, and Israel wil never be able to break this bloc. The ICJ is currently blatantly anti-Israel, and under current conditions Israel will not be able to score any PR points there. It is not worthwhile for Israel to gamble now on the hopes that thiings will change in the future.

Israel will not be seen as running away if they leave the UN and ICJ. Most of the democratic world, even if they oppose Israel's policies, would see that Israel is in an impossible situation, but only if Israel bring their point across very strongly. If Israel leaves the UN, it will be clear that they did it because of the discrimination. As long as Israel stays, their complaints about discrimination will not be taken seriously, because they will be granting the UN legitimacy by being part of it.

The UN will not want Israel to be outside, and they may be willing to make some adjustments to allow Israel to return.

[Mediocrates]

Binyamin - I came across this and wanted to know what you think of it?

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Views%5El116&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

Thanks & Welcome.

[old-reb]

U.S. and the World Court

In 1946, the U.S. accepted an optional clause in the Court's statute -- that gave the Court compulsory jurisdiction over cases regarding interpretation of treaties, any question of international law and any breach of international obligations. In 1984, Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua filed a suit against the U.S for its support of the Contra rebels. In response, the Reagan administration promptly withdrew U.S. recognition of the World Court's compulsory jurisdiction.

[old-reb]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS TEXT REQUESTING INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE


DAN GILLERMAN (Israel) stressed that his present comments were without prejudice to his country’s clear position of principle that the convening of the emergency special session violated fundamental conditions of the Uniting for Peace procedure and of the United Nations Charter. Among its other failings, the current emergency special session was taking place despite the fact that the issue of requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ had not even been raised before the Security Council. The resolutions adopted by the so-called tenth emergency special session were ultra vires and constituted an abuse of the powers of the General Assembly under the Charter.

Israel did not deny that, in exercising its inherent right to self-defence against terrorism, it must act within the limits of international law, he said. However, it rejected attempts to apply that law incorrectly and selectively, to misrepresent the nature and purpose of the security fence and to ignore the context in which the country had taken action. The fence was an “Arafat Fence”; his terrorism had initiated it and made its construction inevitable. If there were no Arafat, there would be no need for a fence.

The security fence, he continued, was a temporary, proven, necessary and non-violent measure adopted to defend the Israeli people from a continuing and vicious campaign of terrorism. As long as the Palestinian leadership flouted its obligations to fight terrorism, there was no alternative to the fence. Yet, the fence was not a border and had no political significance; it did not change the legal status of the territory in any way. Israel remained committed to negotiations on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and remained ready to dismantle or alter the fence in the event of a political settlement.

If built along the Green Line, the fence would not adequately prevent terrorist attacks against civilians, he added. Its route had not been determined by politics, but by a difficult and painful balance between security, humanitarian and topographical conditions. And while some had argued that it was counterproductive to the peace process, the fence would not only improve the humanitarian conditions of the majority of Palestinians by allowing for a significant reduction in Israeli forces in the West Bank, but, in reducing the capacity of Palestinian terrorists to infiltrate and carry out acts of terror, it would also help to restore calm and encourage an environment in which negotiations and the implementation of the Road Map could take place.

It was unsurprising, he said, that the report of the Secretary-General lacked fairness, balance and perspective, given that it had been prompted by a clearly one-sided resolution. The report had made virtually no mention of the terrorist campaign being waged against Israel, which the fence was specifically designed to counter. The question of whether Israeli defensive measures were permissible depended on their proportionality to the threat faced, and while determining that proportionality was a complex process, the tenor of the report seemed to be that any Israeli measure -– no matter how many innocent lives it might save or how much it might release the stranglehold of terrorists on Palestinian society -– was unacceptable if it had any impact on Palestinian lives.

That approach was troubling, he concluded. Not only did it send the message that the Palestinians would not be called upon to stop the terror, but that Israel would not be allowed to stop it either. It was also instructive to consider the Assembly’s response to other actions taken by States fighting terrorism. In past decades, certain Arab States had killed thousands in the name of fighting terrorism, yet the Assembly had remained silent. Only in the case of Israel had that silence been broken.

Once again, the resolution presented for adoption failed to reflect the reality on the ground, he said, or to help the Israeli and Palestinian peoples move closer to peaceful settlement. The request for an advisory opinion constituted a harmful, divisive, illegal and diversionary tactic, which Israel would vote against. Those delegations that cared about peace, preserving the ICJ and restoring the credibility and reputation of the United Nations should do the same.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ga10216.doc.htm

[Binyamin]

Mediocrates,

The writer argues that Israel will benefit from closer ties to Europe, and that it is worth investing in developing these ties. Israel will mostly benefit economically, and they will also be entitled to military assistance as a member of NATO. The cost to Israel will be to make large concessions to the Paletinians, according to Europe's demands.

I think that Israel should try to keep open the possibility of forging new ties with Europe, but they should not invest too much in it.

Europe is not offering anything concrete to Israel now, or signing any deals with them. Israel may spend years trying to please Europe, and they will not get anything in return. This is what happened at the UN, where Israel tried very hard to improve their standing, and they got nothing for their efforts.

Israel cannot rely on getting any assistance as a member of NATO. Before the Iraq war Turkey asked for the help that it was entitled to, and NATO was not forthcoming. Even if Europe will send any help, they will demand that Israel should try their ideas first.

Another problem for Israel is that the cost is to high. They will have to make various concessions to the Palestinians, which will only worsen the situation, and they will not get anything until the Palestinians are happy. As long as Israel is willing to pay tribute to Europe, the Palestinians will be able to demand whatever they want.

On the other hand, Europe also wants Israel. If Israel shows a readiness to work together, but only on its own terms, Europe will probably come towards them.

If Israel would leave the UN in a way which tells the world to go to hell, they will seriously complicate their position. Whatever steps Israel takes, they should clearly tell the western world that they still want to work together, but without having any Arab entities dictating the terms.

[Arkan]

Is it true if Ariel Sharon steps foot in either Europe or Belgium he will be arrested and tried for war crimes in the Hague?

I've heard this but aren't sure if its true.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Arkan
Is it true if Ariel Sharon steps foot in either Europe or Belgium he will be arrested and tried for war crimes in the Hague?

I've heard this but aren't sure if its true. It used to be true, then the law was changed, so Colin Powel and Toni Blair won't have to follow Sharon on the same court...

Accoridning to the European court people, Sharon, Blair and Bush are the real crimminals, while Saddam Hussian or Assad are simply misunderstood.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Binyamin
The ICJ is currently blatantly anti-Israel,

Why would it be? It's an independent institution with different judges with different backgrounds.

[eyl]

Originally posted by Ahava
Why would it be? It's an independent institution with different judges with different backgrounds.

"By their actions ye shall know them..."

Note several things about the case:

1) One of the judges made a public statement (before the trial) stating the fence was illegal. He refused to recuse himself, and the court refused to recuse him.

2) Israeli terror victims were refused permission to testify before the fence, on the grounds of their not being a state. This did not, however, prevent the Palestinians from testifying.

3) The court allowed the OIC and the Arab League, as well as various Muslim countries as individuals, to testify. This despite the fact that other than Jordan (and possibly Egypt), none of them have any connection to or are affected by the fence.

I don't know if this is from ant-Israeli intent or just from buearocratic orneriness(sp). In effect, however, it is ant-Israeli.

[Kev]

http://www.mediabackspin.com/

Photo Essay from The Hague
Carrie Devorah, a photojournalist in Washington DC, and the sister of Chezi Goldberg ( from Toronto originally ) who was murdered in the Jan. 29th Jerusalem bus bombing, went to The Hague to document the security fence hearings.



found here...................

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Photo_Essay_Scenes_from_The_Hague.asp

[Oh Jerusalem]

U.N. request to court disregards Israel's side of the story (http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-bayef25.html)
February 25, 2004

BY ANNE BAYEFSKY Advertisement

The International Court of Justice in the Hague is being asked by the U.N. General Assembly to provide advice on the ''legal consequences'' of Israel's security fence. Predating the request for advice was a November report from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan detailing the harm to Palestinians said to result from the fence and a December General Assembly resolution already deciding the fence is illegal. The question before the court has therefore been crafted to elicit a list of negative human rights consequences for Palestinians.

One element, however, is missing: the human rights of Israelis. Annan's report does not describe a single terrorist act against Israelis.

The U.N. message is clear: The human rights of Israelis are not part of the equation. If they were, the legal balancing act would be this: On the one hand, suicide bombing violates these rights and freedoms of Israelis derived from international treaties: the right to life, freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, equality, freedom from persecution, security of the person, health and well-being, safe working conditions, protection of the family and the child, education, an adequate standard of living, and self-determination, as well as freedoms from incitement to violence, religion, movement and association.

Suicide bombings (along with other terrorist acts) offend this long list because they murder and maim Israelis -- children and adults, women and men -- at work, at play, at worship, and in transit, anywhere, anytime.

The violation of human rights by suicide bombing, starting with the right to life, falls within the category of the gravest violations in international law -- crimes against humanity -- according to the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter and the International Criminal Court's Statute, as well as reports of Amnesty International. The major human rights instruments also render it an attempt at genocide, since they are acts intended ''to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.''

The violation of the right to life fits one other label of modern times -- ethnic cleansing, or the systematic removal of a group of people identified by ethnicity from a certain area through killing or forced migration. Suicide bombing kills some Israelis, encourages others to leave, and discourages still others from immigrating. The intent is to ethnically cleanse the area of Jews, a fact already accomplished in neighboring Arab states, and most other Arab and Muslim countries.

So on the one hand, Israelis are subject to crimes against humanity, attempted genocide and an effort to accomplish ethnic cleansing. Treaties demand that Israel protect the human rights of its citizens from the most grievous offenses known to humankind.

What about the other hand -- the rights of Palestinians? Suicide bombing also violates their rights. Since Palestinian children have been used as suicide bombers and armed combatants, it violates their rights not to take part in hostilities, to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, and the protection necessary for their well-being. The Child Rights Convention says the child's education shall be directed to the development of respect for different civilizations and tolerance among all peoples. The right of the Palestinian child to such an education is repeatedly violated by Palestinian media, schools, textbooks and summer camps, which encourage Palestinian children to hate, and to harm their neighbors.

Palestinians have other rights that have been limited or infringed, like the right to work and freedom of movement. These rights are limited or infringed, however, not by Israel's fence, but by the terrorists who live and operate among them. If a hostage in an armed robbery is killed by police, the law states that the robber caused the death of the hostage, not the police. Palestinian civilians are hostage to the terrorists among them. Israel's actions, like the police officer's, fulfill its legal duties to protect and end violent and illegal behavior.

The International Court therefore has a choice: to become another weapon in the terrorists' arsenal, or to reject the gross abuse of the rule of law and the denial of the equal value of the human rights of Israelis.


Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and a member of the governing board of Geneva-based U.N. Watch, www.unwatch.org.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

The International Court therefore has a choice: to become another weapon in the terrorists' arsenal, or to reject the gross abuse of the rule of law and the denial of the equal value of the human rights of Israelis.




That seems like an odd rhetorical point to make. The ICJ and the UN function by design to be anti Israeli and antisemitic. That is largely their intended purpose. From the people who brought you the Inquisition......another 'legal' body designed to punish Jews and root out infidels......

[MGB8]

There's a nice article on "israelinsider.com" which plainly states the fact that international bodies (and international law) are about interests, not morals or legal principles - which get subverted to those interests. He states it as a truism...but unfortunately I think many people don't realize this very basic fact - particularly young (or not so young) idealists.

Its a good read, I recommend it.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That seems like an odd rhetorical point to make. The ICJ and the UN function by design to be anti Israeli and antisemitic. That is largely their intended purpose. From the people who brought you the Inquisition......another 'legal' body designed to punish Jews and root out infidels......

[Mediocrates]

Thanks. I would also recommend

"Unrestricted Warfare"

Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
(Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)


This is a book length (228 pages) paper published by the PLA (army of the PRC). It's available online for free, you can google it. It's in English. I recommend it because it described how the non western powers view their struggle against us. It introduces the idea that international law, NGOs and transnational bodies are tools in war or conflict by design.

-if anyone wants it an can't find it let me know and I'll email it to you.

[eyl]

Do you have a link (or the article's title)?

Originally posted by MGB8
There's a nice article on "israelinsider.com" which plainly states the fact that international bodies (and international law) are about interests, not morals or legal principles - which get subverted to those interests. He states it as a truism...but unfortunately I think many people don't realize this very basic fact - particularly young (or not so young) idealists.

Its a good read, I recommend it.